[Kevin]

Originally Posted by federico

1) the jurors in america are not sequestred 99% of the times. It happens only if they are threatened.

Actually, no. I'm sure it depends on the state, but in a high-profile case like this where the media is absolutely saturated with stuff which would have been inadmissible at trial, a sequestration order would very possibly be granted. Criminal procedure does vary from state to state though, so I can't talk about anyplace but Oklahoma.

2)in italy you can blame the defendant, but you can also pray him. And most importantly the jurors are watched by 2 judges that control that they don't convict anyone just because they don't like him .

I'm sure Italian jurors are just like American jurors. You never know what the hell they're going to do. I'm young and actually working right now on what'll likely be my first jury trial, but I've been to law school, heard about 9,000 war stories from ancient lawyers and feel like I have a grasp on the fact that you don't know what's going to happen in deliberations.

I do know this -- once inadmissible evidence has been seen by a jury, an order by the judge to disregard it is going to amount to niente. The jury will consider what it wants to consider, arrive at the conclusion it wants to and jury instructions and evidence are often disregarded.

I did have a little bit of experience with a jury in law school. We had a mock trial where the jury consisted of students from a local university (criminal justice majors, I think). We tried a murder case in the ceremonial courtroom (big place) at the federal courthouse. Our guys were alleged cop killers. We won the case when I did my cross-examination of the state's eye-witness who was sitting not 25 feet away from a police car when our 'clients' walked right up and unloaded their guns into the cop's car. I tore her story apart on cross using assumptions about human nature, i.e. that she just sat there and watched and didn't try to run. When the jury came back with the innocent verdict, despite a mountain of evidence against our guys, THAT was the fact that led them all to acquit. Juries are just weird.

)The knife sequestered from Raffaele Sollecito’s apartment is in fact compatible with the deep puncture wound on Meredith’s neck. This was a point that even the defence forensic experts conceded.The american media are saying lies about this.

In the U.S., the standard for guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt. That a knife matches a deep puncture wound and appeared in the apartment of a co-conspirator isn't close to enough to get you there.

The tests on the DNA found on the blade of the knife were not inconclusive. Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni testified at the trial that the DNA on the blade of the knife has been reliably identified as Meredith’s

The 'evidence' appeared under highly questionable circumstances and was very possibly tampered with. Again, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

There were five instances of Amanda Knox’s DNA mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage, including in Filomena’s room where the break-in was staged.

I'm not intimately familiar with the facts of the case, but a roommate's DNA turning up on the other roommate is likely pretty common and doesn't get you to beyond a reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, there was a woman’s bloody shoeprint compatible with Knox’s foot size on a pillow in Meredith’s room. This bloody shoeprint was not compatible with Meredith’s own foot size.

Knox's expert blew the footprint testimony out of the water as I understand. The footprint would have properly been attributed to Guede.

4) someone tried to wash the knife with a very powerful soap , and amanda buyed that soap exactly that morning, after searching the net for a soap that was able to clean blood (doh)

I wash knives with powerful soap all the time... I must be a murderer.

5)Amanda changed her story 4 times, because story n.1 and n.2 and n. 3 where proved lies.

This is the easiest thing of all to debunk. While to the lay person, this sounds pretty bad, I guarantee you 100% that if you talk to a good police detective for long enough regarding a crime you did or did not commit, he can probably get you to change your story several times. This is why just about every criminal lawyer in the world (where you have a right against self-incrimination) will tell you to NEVER talk to the police even if you're innocent.

So, who thinks she is innocent and our legaly sistem sucks now???

I don't know whether she's innocent. I don't think your legal system is as good as ours is when it comes to these high profile media circuses because your legal system hasn't had near the opportunity to deal with and learn from these things. I also find it shocking that the prosecutor can get away with saying so many unfounded, highly provocative, irrelevant and prejudicial things.

And let me repeat... I LOVE Italy. Truly a beautiful country. I know we've had some recent issues with your country, but I don't think that affects our relations one way or the other. Also, thanks for participating here. Your grammar is 100000% better than most of our new [American] members.